(PC) Blackwell v. Jenkins et al, No. 2:2019cv00442 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/1/2019 ADOPTING in FULL 8 Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING 7 Motion Injunction Relief. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Blackwell v. Jenkins et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-00442-TLN-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. JENKINS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was stricken because it was not signed. 19 (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 17, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 8.) The magistrate 24 recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. Plaintiff’s motion detailed 25 allegations that a defendant named in the stricken complaint was harassing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 26 7.) Plaintiff requested the Court “consider his complaint as an emergency and either remove me 27 or remove” Defendant Jenkins. (ECF No. 7 at 4.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings 28 and recommendations. (ECF No. 9.) In his objections, Plaintiff argues he is entitled to injunctive 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 relief because he is not receiving adequate medical care. Plaintiff claims the Court should issue 2 an emergency injunction because his doctors will not even consider prescribing him a low dose of 3 opiates to treat his pain. (ECF No. 9 at 2.) 4 The Court cannot grant Plaintiff injunctive relief at this stage of the proceedings because it 5 is unable to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. See Barrett v. Belleque, 544 6 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (At the pleading stage, the Court cannot determine questions of 7 merit which require submission of evidence, versus only a determination as to whether a claim 8 has been plausibly stated.). Here, Plaintiff has yet to state a cognizable claim or file a signed 9 complaint. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 11 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 12 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 13 analysis. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 17, 2019, are adopted in full; and 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 7) is denied. 17 Dated: August 1, 2019 18 19 20 21 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
